Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-03195
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Karas authorized early subpoenas to identify the anonymous defendant.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC may seek the anonymous defendant’s name and address from Optimum Online and potentially other identified Internet service providers. John Doe may receive notice if the provider qualifies as a cable operator, and the disclosed information is restricted to use in protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, Strike 3 Holdings asked to serve a subpoena before the parties held the initial discovery-planning conference required by Rule 26(f). The defendant was identified in the caption only as John Doe and by an assigned Internet Protocol address.
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had shown good cause to seek information from Optimum Online, the Internet service provider. The order allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena the provider for the defendant’s true name and address and to subpoena another Internet provider identified in response to that request.
Judge Karas also limited use of the information to protecting and enforcing the rights described in the complaint. If the provider qualified as a cable operator, it had to send the defendant a copy of the order as notice of the disclosure.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 7:23-cv-03195
- Kenneth Karas
- May 4, 2023
Background
Strike 3 Holdings moved for permission to serve a third-party subpoena before the parties’ conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendant was identified as John Doe, a subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 67.85.115.158. The proposed initial recipient was Optimum Online, which the order calls the Internet service provider.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Strike 3 Holdings had established “good cause” to serve the subpoena before the Rule 26(f) conference. The opinion relied on Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions addressing early subpoenas seeking to identify an anonymous defendant.
Order
The court authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve Optimum Online with a subpoena under Rule 45 requiring it to provide the defendant’s true name and address. A copy of the order had to accompany the subpoena. The court also authorized Strike 3 Holdings to serve the same type of subpoena on any other Internet service provider identified in response as providing Internet services to one of the defendants.
If Optimum Online qualified as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), the order required it to comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which permits disclosure of personal identifying information under a court order when the subscriber is notified. The order therefore required the provider to send the defendant a copy of the order. Strike 3 Holdings could use information obtained through the subpoena only to protect and enforce the rights stated in its complaint.
The opinion does not state an express “granted” or “denied” label for the motion; it authorizes the requested subpoena procedures.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.